How could Pascal be so intelligent when it came to science and math and such a bonehead in philosophy?

Question

His 'religious philosophy' was full of holes.
Besides the obvious, ridiculous assertion that ‘it is better to believe in god than not, just to be on the safe side' (and what god would respect something as flimsy as that?) there is also his statement that without god, life is meaningless and miserable.
Atheists, whether you want to see it or not, have more of a meaning to their lives than an instant, straight-out-of-the-box believer. A believer says 'yes, there is a god because other people told me so'. If such an attitude isn't meaningless, it is, at least silly and superficial.
An atheist on the other hand does not just accept prepackaged answers. An atheist is searching for the meaning to existence. (This is the part where religious people read into this 'see, he's looking for god', ah, wrong. A meaning to life doesn't require a magical deity.)
By actively questioning existence, an atheist is using the scientific mind that Pascal seemed to be missing in his philosophy.

Picard - why are you only capitalizing the letter L??

Answer 1

Excellent points about Atheist views, you could be the new improved Pascal.

How's your math skills?

Answer 2

An interesting argument, but I do have to disagree with a couple of points. I am a believer in God. I was brought up a believer, but quit going to church after confirmation by choice. I did a lot of searching at that time, into other religions, Christian and non-Christian, and even Wicca and some Pagan beliefs. I started going to chuch again (a Christian church) when I was about 29. I don't consider myself to be an 'out of the box' believer, who just believes because of how I was brought up. I gave it 10 years of thought. It's also not true that I never searched for the meaning of existence, or that I never questioned God's existence. There is nothing wrong with questioning. After 10 years of looking, I found the answer. I respect your search, and I respect the way that you've phrased your beliefs. I do not appreciate being called gullible, stupid and ignorant for believing in God, as some of your contemporaries enjoy saying, just as you don't appreciate having believers shove God down your throat. There is plenty of room on earth for all people, and all beliefs. I'll respect yours if you respect mine. That being said, thank you for such a rational and cohesive argument!

Answer 3

People at that time would accept as worthy of consideration _anything_ written in _any field_ by someone who was successful in one field. (Nostradamus actually wrote and had published a book of jam recipes).

So people were interested in reading any old crap Pascal wrote just because 'Hey! It's Pascal!'

It probably should never have been published in the first place. If it's rubbish now, it was rubbish then.

Answer 4

I wouldn't think of Pascal as dumb. He may not have perfected his science and mathematics that his search for truth is full of holes and unfinished! It might be his other side of the brain which is not fully developed. You may have valid points tho his weakness may have been his difference from us who are ordinary.

Answer 5

His take on the surreal left him with an angelic since of ineptness but this he overcame with foreboding. If he had taken the path of Sartre then his discoveries would probably have overshadowed this idyllic existence.

Answer 6

If you be live in God only to avoid the consequences that you really have no backbone, that is too easy a way out!

Answer 7

i think reLigious peopLe got to him at an earLy age, i know a Lot of inteLLigent peopLe who beLieve things that make no sense because of "faith", it's obvious that they have had reLigion stuffed down their throats since before they couLd taLk.

Answer 8

any bonehead can be philosophical. look at me. look at L. Ron Hubbard. Maybe smarter people try to think about it too much, and overanalyze.